Hot answers tagged kit-lens
42
All text in brown <- like this, is linked to images - whether or not thumbnails are provided.
Thumbnails are not live linked.
All these things can be done with your kit lens:
Learn to minimise depth of field in a given situation (max aperture, max zoom, foot zoom to fit) to see how much background defocusing you can achieve. Not an ideal lens for ...
37
If you just want bokeh for bokeh's sake then you can achieve this with pretty much any lens and any type of camera, even a tiny sensor compact, by focusing extremely close. Depth of field diminishes very quickly with focus distance, so much so that it becomes a major problem with macro photography getting a non blurred background (or subject!)
However this ...
20
There are so many variables here, it would be impossible to give you a precise answer. It depends entirely what you are wanting to do...
The kit lens can, in many cases, give a satisfactory photograph, however there are two main areas in which the kit lens suffers in competition against a pro lens:
Aperture. Kit lenses are slow. They are usually about ...
19
There are several:
optical quality
build quality
Autofocus Speed
manual focus ability is minimal (not USM, very narrow ring)
rotating filter mount (bad for polarizer use)
The key factor for me though, is the maximum aperture. Usually a kit lens is f/3.5-5.6, while a good zoom is f/2.8. That difference is huge when working in low light.
18
At 50mm on your 18-55, the max aperture is f/5.6. On the 50mm f/1.8, the max aperture is - obviously - f/1.8. It is perhaps not immediately obvious, but f/1.8 lets in 10-12 times more light than f/5.6. That is the difference between shooting at 1/10 second shutter speed (which is absolutely a no-go for moving subjects) and shooting at 1/100 (which is a ...
17
The answer is, unfortunately, depends.
First, what kit are we talking about? The 5D Mark II kit comes with the 24-105mm f4 IS L lens. The lens is roughly $1000 new, so selling it immediately, gives you discount on the body itself, so it absolutely makes sense to get the kit (unless you don't want to hassle with selling the lens). I bought the 5d2 kit, even ...
16
"L" lenses aren't always necessarily sharper than their non-L cousins. In fact, some of them are very much softer, often as a consequence of being two or three stops faster than the cheaper lenses, but sometimes just because they're a decade or two older in design.
What you do get with "L" lenses is professional features and the build quality of a light ...
16
How can I make it work wonders ?
By lighting your images properly. This doesn't mean you have to buy loads of studio lighting gear, when you know how light works you can apply this to natural lighting just as effectively as artificial.
Proper lighting will reduce the dynamic range of your scene by brightening shadows, and will create contrast by ...
14
Yes. Prime lenses usually offer both superior image quality and larger apertures compared to zoom lenses of similar price. This is due to simpler mechanical construction, as less moving parts are needed, and due to especially chromatic aberration being easier to correct for just one focal length.
The decision between 35mm and 55-200mm is in the end about ...
13
The only time I would argue for not buying a kit is when you already own other lenses that cover the same focal range. If you are purchasing your first DSLR you should go ahead and get the kit. Even though the kit lenses have a bad reputation, it's been said that "99% of lenses are better than 99% of photographers", and the kit lens is going to be a great ...
13
I gave pretty much the same answer before, but here it is again for completeness. To minimise DOF and get the blurred background effect you should:
Use as long a focal length as possible.
Use a wide aperture low f/ number (but don't zoom out increase the f/ number as the actual lens opening gets no bigger)
Use as close a focussing distance as possible ...
13
I'm reading your question is basically "what do they do in a more expensive lens to make it better?"
There are a number of things. Quite a bit is simple mechanics: more expensive lenses get better quality assurance, so you have a lot better assurance that the individual lens you get actually performs as well as the design was intended to. Second, is pretty ...
12
The 18-200 might be more expensive, but I don't think I've ever seen a lens getting worse reviews. (There are two reviews linked there, and they're two of the friendlier ones.)
The 55-250mm, on the other hand, gets rave optical reviews. The worst thing anyone has to say about it is that, well, is mostly plastic. Really good, solid, well-built plastic, but ...
12
No, not all kit lenses are poor. For example, the DP Review review on the Pentax 18-55mm kit (version 1) is actually quite good. Another review on version 2 shows improvement on the first version as well. In any event, it's a pretty decent lens and at a knock-out price, but it's not a superstar lens either, you just get more than you paid for I think. :)
...
12
Why are lenses included in kits so bad?
Kit lenses aren't bad -- they're just optimized for different parameters. A kit lens is meant to be a decent general purpose lens that'll get you started with your camera and at the same time keep the price of the total package down to a point where you'll still buy it. If you compare the EF-S 18-135 IS to lenses ...
11
I don't think it's 100% universally true that all kit lenses suck (5D Mark II kit came with a 24-105F4 IS which is a high-quality zoom lens).
Much of it has to do with information, sales, and the psychology of money.
Kits with 'low quality' lenses aren't targeted to semiprofessional/professional photographers. They are targeted to first time buyers who ...
11
Generally speaking, one must consider the age of the technology when doing fair comparisons. The 18-55 IS is a fairly new lens (replaced the 18-55 non-IS only a couple of years ago), while the 17-40 is an older lens (by itself, though, it does not necessarily mean that a newer lens is better/sharper).
Then, like any mechanical device, there are ...
11
It would entirely depend on the level of the camera kit you are buying. In most cases, lower-end entry-level cameras, such as the Rebel series from Canon or the Nikon D3100, usually do have rather cheap 18-55mm lenses bundled with them. The optics are usually not top notch, build quality is usually lower, however you are getting such a lens for a real steal ...
10
There's a difference between cameras with a kit lens, and camera kit accessory bundles.
The former are from the manufacturer, and generally give you a good deal on a low-end wide-normal zoom. (Sometimes, it's even cheaper to buy a camera in this form than body only!)
Camera accessory bundles are put together by camera stores, and include things like a ...
10
A lot of on-line commentators express disappointment with the 17-40's optics and consistency in particular. And it's smallest, lightest L lens available. It's among the cheapest as well. The L primes cost and weigh more.
The reviews all seem to agree that the 18-55 IS has really good optics for the price.
Some observers of photo tech trends argue that ...
10
It's pretty harsh to lump all kit lenses into that same bucket. There's no question that kit lenses sold with entry-level cameras tend to be entry-level lenses, but isn't that to be expected?
If you take an entry-level Canon or Nikon kit, for instance, the kit lens is designed to get a relatively new photographer up and running quickly, and to do so at a ...
10
The 50mm F/1.8 is certainly best suited for portraits. Its bright aperture lets you shoot in lower light and allows for much more background blur as seen in classic portraits, because it separates the subject from the background and tends to remove distracting elements.
Honestly, I would not use the other one for anything. Getting a poor lens is the easiest ...
9
When I first did it, I bought a body and a separate zoom lens. If I were to do it again, I think I would do the same thing, but get a 50m prime lens.
Why?
Every camera company offers a 50m prime lens that is inexpensive, so it's a great buy when you are first starting out. The other reason is overload of information. When you first start out, the ...
9
55-300 is a telephoto zoom, not the most versartile lens for shooting indoors as it's relatively slow (doesn't let in much light). It's fine for outdoors/nature though. I would recommend getting something wider, especially if this is your only lens. 55mm on the d7000 is around a portraiture focal length, meaning it's usually used for close ups of people. If ...
9
Those 'extra kits' are indeed cheaper than if you bought the camera + lenses separately, what you have to ask yourself is:
do I actually want that lens or am I just buying it because it comes in a kit?
Saving $200 on a lens you don't actually want isn't a good deal :) Weather or not said lens is 'worth it' is entirely up to you, they are all 'consumer ...
9
For general purpose photography for a general purpose casual user there probably isn't much reason to upgrade your general purpose lens. For everyday photos you'll be printing out on your printer or at the local lab/supermarket to 6x4or A4 etc to show friends and family I doubt you'll notice much of the quality difference between this lens and the more ...
9
Firstly, there's nothing wrong with the 18-55mm Nikon kit lens. It will do everything an amateur needs and more, though macro work is rather specialised.
You will find it very hard to find a new macro lens within your budget - most start at around $400. You might consider investing in a set of good extension tubes instead, which will let you use the kit ...
9
Having a body and a 50mm isn't a bad way to get started, but if you do a lot of landscapes you might find it a bit stifling.
I'd pick up the 18-55 pack, kit lenses are generally good enough for you to start learning what works best for you and then look at investing into glass then. I rushed into buying stuff 6 months after getting a camera and then ...
9
The answer to the question "should you consider a 35mm lens" is obviously going to depend a lot on you and on the type of photography you like to do. However, there are at least two factors (other than the very different focal lengths) that set the 35mm f/1.8 lens apart from the other two lenses.
1) Speed of the lens (how much light it lets in):
An f/1.8 ...
9
It means, normally a 550D comes with the older 18-55 IS lens, and now you will get the 18-55 IS Mk.II instead.
Note that optically, the two are identical. The only improvement is IS algorithm (the algorithm, not hardware)
Other than that it is cosmetic : the silver band is now painted black instead.
In terms of performance, there is no difference between ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
